Atheists are Differently Religious – and No, Atheism is not the/a Religion

A main focus of this blog is to consider and compare different political and ethical philosophies so as to promote better understanding of one’s own worldview and those of others. I frequently focus on progressivism/liberalism and libertarian conservativism, arguing that these incompletely overlapping moral/political philosophies each have their own internal logic and validity, but that when viewed from the perspective of the other, each is libel to look stupid and/or even evil.

Close to a year ago, I posted Atheists are Religious. Here I re-post it with modifications. In this article, I argue that while lack of a belief in this or that God is not itself a religion, any value system that an atheist may hold is ultimately ungrounded in any sort of empiricism. Rather, these and all value systems rely on circular self-validation and assumptions and assertions that are themselves unscientific. As I will argue below, this doesn’t make them wrong or deserving of dismissal; it just means that subscribers cannot claim that their values are rooted in nothing but reason and logic. Reason and logic, in these value systems, are applied based on unempirical values, which can be conceived of as faith claims about an implied moral/existential reality.

New Rule: Only People With PhDs May Give Opinions.

This appears to be the premise of an unduly dismissive commenter responding to a recent post on homeopathy. For your enjoyment, here is what he/she had to say:

Hi Ron,

I hope you will forgive me for sounding a tad harsh here, but a trade school certificate from a tenth rate university does not qualify you to speak about scientific research, pro or con. An OT MA is science only in pretension, not in fact. Ditto for an undergrad BA in psych, albeit at a much better university. Get a good Ph.D. in a hard science, then get a few decades under your belt as a real researcher, publish in major peer reviewed journals, and perhaps you will have earned sufficient knowledge (and humility) to be able to comment intelligently. Otherwise I regret to say, it just may be possible that some of your blogging may be more about the hubris inherent in being young (29 years old) than about carefully weighed, thoughtful analysis.

So we’re all clear on the new rule, yes? Until you have earned a PhD in a hard science (i.e., bio, chem, physics) from an Ivy League school, have gotten a couple of decades of research under your belt, authored publications in major peer reviewed journals, and are much older than 29, if you have an opinion on something scientific, for heaven’s sake,

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ARROGANT LITTLE BASTARD!

Because of course, if you don’t meet all of those qualifications, you couldn’t possibly have done extensive research. You couldn’t possibly have thoughtfully looked at both sides. And, if you are like me, all of the following is not even close to qualifying you for any type of scientific thinking:

* Hon. B.Sc in Psychology Research and Cognitive Science with High Distinction from the University of Toronto;

* A 3.9 GPA in my MS/PhD program in Cognitive Psychology at Rutgers University – before I dropped out, having finally realized how terrible the job market is for psych profs and how tedious I found most of what I was doing to be;

* Completion of an MSc(Occupational Therapy) at the University of Western Ontario, which far from being a “10th rate university”, is among the top 15% or so of Canadian universities; furthermore, the average incoming GPA to the OT program was ~3.6/4.

* 4-5 years of experience working in labs in Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and Social/Personality Psychology.

* 12 full course equivalents (FCE) at the undergraduate and graduate levels in statistics, research methodology and design, and lab research. Since a typical school year contains 5 FCEs, this experience is equivalent to taking nothing but scientific methodology, statistics and lab research courses for about 2.5 school years.

* Being an intellectually curious person who regularly reads up on areas of interest.

What this commenter has demonstrated is a form of elitism. What is more, the comment exudes incredible ignorance with regard to everything it addresses. In addition to radically under-estimating pretty well everyone that has not become a tenured university professor, it radically over-estimates the value of the education and experience required to meet the commenter’s criteria.

The 50 year old PhD that our commenter has given exclusive speaking privileges to need not be dramatically more scientifically literate in a broad sense than a Masters graduate, a very keen B.Sc graduate, or an exceptionally keen person without university education but with a determined willingness to engage in years of independent study of critical thinking, scientific methodology and particular areas of research, and intellectual fellowship with other rigorously interested parties.

It really does not take nearly as long as our commenter seems to believe to become scientifically literate and informed. The 50 year old PhD’s understanding of how science works, scientific thinking, and the like, was probably for the most part about as developed as it was going to get by the time he or she was part-way through their Masters, if not earlier. In terms of developing expertise in their field, they could easily have been quite up to snuff before the completion of their PhD. Speaking from personal experience, I was able to hold my own quite well with leading scientists in my area of research – first language acquisition and related areas of cognitive development – prior to even starting my Masters at Rutgers. Most of the many years invested by mid and late career PhD scientists are spent doing the laborious, time-consuming and often tedious work that goes into doing and getting funding for good science, not in developing scientific literacy or subject matter expertise.

However, as a service to the commenter, I’ll recommend that he visits the blog of University of Toronto biochemist, Larry Moran, if he wants more credentialed views on homeopathy. Maybe while our commenter is there, he’ll notice that like many other esteemed scientists, Larry positively encourages the masses to engage with science.

Homeopathy Under Fire in the US, UK, Italy, Israel and Australia

Skeptic North, a well-written Canadian team blog advocating for science, skepticism and rationalism, has been a great source of information on the ongoing scientific, intellectual and moral train-wreck that is homeopathy. I have a bit of a warm spot for this blog, as it was formed in part by concurrent and later-coming members of Canadian skeptic organizations that I have been a member of in the past, and continue to endorse to this day (e.g., the University of Toronto Secular Alliance; Centre for Inquiry Canada). And though I’ve never met her, Skeptic North-er Kim Hebert and I have a fair bit in common – we’re both Canadian Occupational Therapists whom have been independently concerned about the “feel good” post-modernist “science-isn’t-the-only-truth” type thinking that often pervades the public healthcare and healthcare education systems. Each of us have experienced strong pressure within our Master’s of Science in Occupational Therapy professional graduate programs to “respect” homeopathy. Quite frankly, if I was respecting homeopathy while knowing what it was, I’d hardly be a Master of Science.

Anyhow, the most recent posting in Skeptic North’s ongoing coverage of homeopathy’s trials and tribulations (e.g., the tribulations resulting from one failed clinical trial after another) is a listing of embarrassing and potentially expensive legal suits that various homeopathic education and product outfits are currently ensnared in in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Israel and Australia.

When they lose their cases, maybe they can try to pay off the settlements with bags and suitcases that previously contained money…

RELATED POSTS:

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

Endorsing Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario Candidate, Parkdale-High Park

I am proud to throw my out-of-riding support behind Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario, who is seeking to represent the Parkdale – High Park riding. Justin Trottier is a principled and active advocate for science, reason, freedom of and from religion, nontheism, free speech, gay rights, and environmental responsibility.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know Justin during my time as a supporter of the various secular, science, reason, nontheist, humanist advocacy organizations that he has played leading roles in. Justin has been at the crest of the wave of Canadian science, reason, atheist and secular activism for, by my estimation, about 6-7 years now. He began by starting up the Toronto Secular Alliance, which simply exploded due to what was clearly perceived by a segment of the Canadian population to be a much welcomed voice. In collaboration with the US-based  Center For Inquiry, TSA morphed into a combination of the Freethought Association of Canada and Centre For Inquiry Ontario, Justin heading both. These organizations played leading roles in seeing affiliated groups popping up on university and college campuses across the nation, and city centres in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, operating under the new umbrella organization, Centre for Inquiry Canada, which (unsurprisingly) has been led by Mr. Trottier.

While many atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalists, science enthusiasts and environmentalists might easily gravitate toward Trottier, his position at the forefront of the national atheist movement may be seen a strong turn-off to others. If you are a devout conservative religionist in the Parkdale-High Park riding, there may not be much I could say to you that would bring you around to considering Trottier. However, Trottier has a lot to offer religious folk in general.

His commitment to secularism – i.e., the separation of religion from politics, such that governments can neither favour nor disfavour one religion or some religions over others, or religion over non-religion – is a commitment to ensuring a level playing field to people of all religious and belief communities. It says that, no matter what you believe, you will be treated equally under Canadian law and policy. It means that in the court room, the same laws apply to all Canadians. In the political chambers, it means that all faith and non-faith-based policy initiatives are vetted in the same way. In public education, it means subjecting ideas championed by any establishment to the same peer-reviewed processing as all other ideas before they are considered for public curriculum inclusion. It means not treating, for example, Muslims or Muslim ideas as if they deserve less than others and not treating, for example, Catholics and Catholic ideas as if they deserve  more. Relatedly, both the Green Party of Ontario and a multi-faith/nonfaith coalition, the One School System Network (ONESSN), co-led by Trottier have been at the forefront of political efforts in Ontario to discontinue public funding of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, an uneconomical privilege that is available to no other religious or other community group. While some proponents of the status quo have argued that this is an anti-Catholic or anti-religious movement, nothing could be further from the truth. It is about leveling the playing field and bringing Canadians together, not dividing them by religious affiliation.

While secularism has become somewhat of a loaded word, it is something that just about all Canadians can get behind. It is freedom of and freedom from religion, which enables each of us to practice this or that religion or no religion as we like without being pressured or favoured one way or another by our public institutions.

As an advocate of free thought and an educated citizenry, Trottier has favoured introduction of public school courses on religion and belief that teach students, in a neutral fashion, about different schools of religious and nonreligious belief and value systems. As a free speech advocate, he has actively supported the free speech rights of people with markedly different politics than himself, including York University pro-life/anti-abortion activists and well-known North American conservative figures Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, when they were under investigation for speaking out against radical Islam in The Western Standard and MacLeans magazine, respectively. Trottier has also been an active supporter of LGBT equality. Yet more examples of Trottier working to level playing fields.

As an advocate of science and science-based policy, Trottier is precisely the kind of person we need in political office when it comes to addressing the growing challenges we face in healthcare, energy and environmental policy. Trottier is a man with the principle and scientific acumen to skillfully advocate for evidence-based policy.

As a person whom has had the privilege to get to know Justin Trottier the person, and not just Justin Trottier the emerging public figure, I can attest to his good character. When I first met Justin, he had already attained some public attention, but not really much. It was after I began getting to know him that he started to regularly appear on television, in newspapers, and at the forefront of a movement that had gone from being University of Toronto and downtown Toronto centred to being a well-known national cultural voice. Throughout this time, as far as I can tell, he’s still the same Justin. The same earnest, friendly, driven, passionate, and infinitely curious guy I first met in 2007.

If you are in the Parkdale – High Park riding or know someone that is, I encourage you/them to consider Justin Trottier, a grassroots champion of equality, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, science, reason, and so many of the values that make Canada one of the most admired and most progressive nations in the world.

Best of luck, Justin.

UPDATE:

Progressive Proselytizing has posted several good articles, unsurprisingly from a progressive perspective, on the candidates in the Parkdale – High Park riding.

Support Justin on Facebook by LIKING his candidacy page!

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

As a busy single individual I like to limit my cooking to once or twice a week, each time cooking enough food for several days. Five days ago I made five days worth of delicious chicken stirfry. After finishing off my final serving, all of the chicken and lovingly cut fresh vegetables are gone. However, about a serving’s worth of rice remains. What to do with this rice? Have it as a snack or throw it out? Then it hit me!

HOMEOPATHIC CHICKEN DINNER!

Winning!

Think about it. Homeopathic is clearly a load of anti-reality nonsense burgeoning and eminently valid field of evidence-based healthcare. After all, the Ontario Ministry of Health wouldn’t be setting up a homeopathic regulatory board – The College of Homeopaths of Ontario – if homeopathy is nonsense, right? I mean, what’s the point in regulating nonsense? I suppose it could promote safety. But in terms of maximizing effectiveness, it’s not like doing something nonsensical “the right way” (“Bill, you’re not succussing it right! You shake up and down first, then side to side!”) is gonna make it less nonsensical. Am I right? Similarly, I wouldn’t have gotten brow-beaten by my Masters of Occupational Therapy professor for being a black-and-white thinker for criticizing an idea that had a leg to stand on, right? Exactly. So anyhow, homeopathy=good.

Homeopathy contends that water maintains memory of all that had ever been dissolved in it. Similar to how water as a solvent is the base (i.e., foundation) for solutes, rice is the base of many meals. So maybe if water will remember a solute that has been completely and decisively diluted out of it (which, by the way, makes everything we drink a homeopathic solution – I wonder how many times I’ve drank homeopathic dinosaur urine…. but I digress…) my rice will remember the chicken that was in it the day before. And even if that argument doesn’t hold up, the rice is more than half water! Bulletproof.

Look how much money this will save me, too! No wonder the agricultural and farming industries don’t want us to know about homeopathic chicken dinners….

If anyone knows the conversion rate of memory proteins to actual proteins, feel free to enlighten me in the comment section below.

Atheists Are Religious.

Just because one does not believe in a God, Gods, karma, reincarnation, astrology, L. Ron Hubbard, or eighteen year old “elders” who knock on your door on Sunday mornings to bring you the good news from Utah, that doesn’t mean that they are not religious. I don’t know that I’ve ever met an atheist who wasn’t religious in their own way. I certainly am. Like other atheists, I subscribe to a sort of religion that is both different and similar to what we conventionally refer to as “religion”.

How are atheists religious?

Solving The Mind-Body Problem in Five Minutes

What is the relationship between mind and matter?

Materialism holds that the mental is a product of the physical – the mind is what the brain does. By contrast, dualist accounts are consistent with our common sense  notion that the mental is fundamentally different from the physical. How much does a thought weigh? a dualist might ask. In this post I will offer a materialist position that offers all the strengths of materialism as commonly understood, but with none of the shortfalls.

Christine O’Donnell and The Establishment Clause

A few days ago, I ran a post on Delaware Tea Party candidate for Senator, Christine O’Donnell, and her ignorance of key aspects of the United States Constitution, a centerpiece of her campaign and the Tea Party movement. One thing that she appeared to be shockingly ignorant of was the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment. If you watch the video, which I’ll re-post at the end of this post, you’ll see that she appears to be very surprised by the news of the existence of a clause indicating a Separation of Church and State (if you don’t want to watch the entire video, just go to about 2:40). This, understandably, gets her laughed at by an auditorium full of law students and faculty.

A commenter, billy bob, has pointed out that there may be more to this issue than originally meets the eye – well, my eye at least.

billy bob writes:

There has been some talk that she was joking, but the reality is that the First Amendment doesn’t say there should be a separation of Church and State:

1	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This isn’t to say shes ‘right’ just that shes not wrong in her claims. Every bill in the USA has ‘In god we trust”, at the time the Constitution was written the USA was a religious state, the intent of the first amendment has only come to mean a separation of church in recent times.

Christine O’Donnell: Stunningly and embarrassingly ignorant.

This is just painful. I think US Far-Right politicians might be trying to disprove evolution by getting dumber and dumber year by year. O’Donnell (Republican) is playing out to be a bigger embarrassment than Sarah Palin. Palin, on the other hand, completed an amazing feat that I don’t think anyone saw coming: she made Bush appear to be relatively intelligent and informed.

Here is video of O’Donnell debating electoral opponent Chris Coons (Democrat).